from the opportunities-abound dept

Earlier today, we at Floor64 released the latest "Sky is Rising" study that we've done, in association with CCIA, this time about the nature of the luxury goods market online: The Sky is Rising: Luxury Goods Edition. This is a bit of a departure from the three previous editions of the "Sky is Rising" reports -- which all focused on entertainment content. However, as we've been seeing over the last few years, while the effect has not been as dramatic, some traditional luxury brands have been attacking the internet, or suggesting that the internet is somehow damaging for their business. Usually, this is because they feel that they have lost some level of control over the channel -- and many traditional legacy goods companies have used stringent controls over the channel as part of their business model. Our research, however, demonstrates that their fear of the internet is misplaced. Companies embracing the internet have found that it's a better way to connect with consumers. Offering them new ways to research and buy such goods is one obvious aspect, but it has also created new communities that have enabled people to become more connected and supportive of certain brands. It's also helped to open up new geographical markets and opportunities, allowing smaller brands to go global where historically that would have been too expensive or difficult.

Overall, we see that the internet has been a major driving force in growing the market for these goods, and we've seen that, contrary to the fears of some companies, things like secondary markets (for used goods) enabled by the internet have really only served to help. It has expanded brands name recognition and desire much further, and created plenty of new opportunities for brands. And, of course, it's not just the "legacy" big brands that we're talking about. The rise of the internet has enabled new luxury brands to take the world by storm, using new tools like crowdfunding and flash sales to build up a supportive customer base.

In short, as we've seen with our studies on the internet as it relates to entertainment content, while the internet has created certain new challenges for traditional players, those who have embraced the internet, rather than fought it, have found tremendous benefits in doing so. Please check out the report below, or see CCIA's announcement as well.

from the gosh-you-don't-say dept

For years incumbent ISPs have abused limited market competition to impose usage caps on fixed-line connections, then sock customers with per gigabyte overages. These slowly-expanding usage caps are usually imposed under the pretense that the ISPs are just ultra worried about fairness and managing the congestion bogeyman. After years of pretense, even the carriers a few years back finally acknowledged that usage caps aren't really about congestion. They're price hikes in a dress, and they're designed specifically to protect legacy TV revenues from the rise of Internet video.

"According to the literature, providers facing limited competition could use UBP to increase profits, potentially resulting in negative effects, including increased prices, reductions in content accessed, and increased threats to network security. Several researchers and stakeholders GAO interviewed said that UBP could reduce innovation for applications and content if consumers ration their data. While FCC is collecting data regarding fixed UBP, it is not using this data to track UBP use because it only recently started collecting the data specifically to analyze prices. As a result, although FCC is charged with promoting the public interest, it may not know if UBP is being used in a way that is contrary to the public interest and, if so, take appropriate actions."

In other words, the FCC is behind the game when it comes to tracking usage cap data, and therefore couldn't be bothered to study the negative impact of usage caps. The GAO noted that "better communication is warranted" on the issue and that the fixed-line broadband industry should develop a "voluntary code of conduct" to make sure consumers understand what they're buying. While that's all well and good, it doesn't address the failure of regulators to track meter accuracy, nor does it really address the fact that usage caps are by and large (like neutrality violations) the byproduct of uncompetitive markets.

Historically cable and phone companies have argued that they should be free to engage in pricing experimentation, and that straight usage-based billing plans could potentially benefit consumers. The GAO agrees, noting that plans where users only pay for what they use would certainly be ok:

"The literature also suggests that providers could implement UBP to benefit consumers—for example, by offering low-data, low-cost plans for those who do not want an unlimited data plan. While mobile providers GAO reviewed offer such plans, fixed providers—generally facing less competition—do so to a lesser extent."

Odd, that. Obviously the problem is that while carriers pay lip service to usage-based plans that offer value, with no competition this never actually comes to fruition. What we wind up seeing are plans that simply take existing flat-rate unlimited pricing, with overage fees layered on top. In a few instances users will get a tiny discount in exchange for giving up the freedom of unlimited data. For example, Time Warner Cable (who took an absolute PR beating in 2009 and had to retreat from mandatory caps) now offers users a $5 discount if they replace unlimited consumption with a $5 usage cap. Feeling the value yet?

from the we-need-reform dept

Post sponsored by

Techdirt has written about Newegg many times since the company became a leader in fighting back against ridiculous patent lawsuits, going toe-to-toe with some of the biggest trolls around. The company's Chief Legal Officer, Lee Cheng, has vowed to never settle with a patent troll, and so far has never lost an appeal on a patent claim. As he puts it:

As I learned about this uniquely American litigation industry, it became clear that the lawsuits were being filed by people who had identified a way to extract unjust premiums for often worthless patents because of weaknesses in our legal system. The majority of defendants, both large and small companies, are forced to settle with patent trolls because of the high costs of defending themselves.

Newegg has fought back and won — but, as satisfying as it is when a patent troll gets smacked down in court, this is still an unnecessary and unfair tax on innovation, draining time and resources from companies like Newegg that could be better spent doing just about anything other than fending off frivolous patent lawsuits. And for every company that fights back, there are many more that don't have those resources at all, and simply pay the extortionist fees that make patent trolls billions of dollars richer every year. No matter how many companies fight back, the problem won't truly be solved without real patent litigation reform that addresses the roots of trolling and abuse.

Last week marked the one year anniversary of the passage of the Innovation Act in the House, by a bipartisan majority. The bill, which would have made real progress in addressing the patent troll problem, was blocked in the Senate, but there is no good reason this bipartisan bill supported by the President should not be law. Today, the CEA urges you to contact your U.S. Senator and ask them to pass patent litigation reform using the contact tool at that link and embedded below.

The Innovation Movement, sponsored by the Consumer Electronics Association, unites those who believe innovation is critical to American global leadership and economic growth. The Innovation Movement uses grassroots advocacy tools to support smart public policies, like patent litigation reform, that foster startups and innovation. To learn more about the Innovation Movement’s work fighting patent trolls, visit trollticker.com, follow on Twitter @imovement and like Innovation Movement on Facebook.

from the true-storytelling dept

For this week's awesome stuff, we've got a few informative film projects doing the rounds on Kickstarter.

Arresting Power

With the ever-present issue of police abuse and racial profiling currently coming to a head across America, the time is right for the release of a documentary like Arresting Power, which tracks the history of these and related problems in Portland, Oregon, going all the way back to civil rights actions in the 60s. But it didn't catch my eye just because it's topical — there's also an interesting reason the filmmakers need cash. Apparently they gained access to the Oregon Historical Society's film archives, where they got film of meetings and marches dating back over fifty years — but the society wants $6 per second for the rights to use the footage.

The Penalty

Closely tied up with the debate about law enforcement is the debate about the death penalty, so our second documentary this week is The Penalty, which follows the stories of three different people whose lives are tangled up with capital punishment in different ways, including an exonerated inmate who spent 15 years on death row.

RealAnimalsFakePaws

Okay, I'm cheating a bit here, since this one isn't exactly a documentary. But we all remember a couple of months ago when John Oliver created footage of dogs dressed as Supreme Court justices and challenged the internet to create videos of all the major cases, right? Well, one person at least is aiming to do exactly that, with the ambitious plan of doing every recorded Supreme Court case one mini-Kickstarter at a time. There's only a day left to help him hit his modest $250 goal, and I for one think he deserves a shot to show everyone what he can do!

from the definitions-matter dept

Recently, the IP Troll Tracker blog decided to try to officially define "patent troll" to a level that might satisfy a patent holder who insists that there is no such thing as a patent troll. For many years, we here at Techdirt avoided using the phrase "patent troll" because it did seem rather undefined, but it became so commonplace that we eventually gave in and used the phrase regularly. The term has showed up in all sorts of places, including courtrooms and discussions on legislation. In some circles, policy makers often use the term "non-practicing entities" (or NPEs) instead of "patent trolls" but that upsets some who feel that there are "NPEs" (like universities) that do research that they wish to license off, but which will never be "practicing entities." Some have also called them "Patent Assertion Entities" (PAEs) to describe companies who do nothing more than assert patents. At least that leaves out universities -- but then that also leaves out companies who do other things but who also, do some patent trolling (including, frankly, some universities, since we're discussing them).

Stephanie Kennedy, who runs the IP Troll Tracker blog, came up with the following definition:

Patent Troll, n -

1/ A company or individual who, using patents that either never should have been issued or are broadly constructed (intentionally for the purpose of misuse, or as a result of poor USPTO patent examination practices), sends letters to various and sundry companies and/or individuals that simultaneously request license fees and threaten legal action if the recipient fails to respond correctly by paying up and who will, in the face of inaction by a demand letter recipient, actually file suit in Federal District Court, the District of East Texas being the most popular venue.

2/ A company set up to act as a cover for large corporations who try to breathe new life into older patents which they would ordinarily let expire but, as a result of greed and/or pressure from Wall Street, have decided are ripe for assertion or litigation.

Anyway, I like this formulation a lot better than the simplistic "NPE" designation, because I think there are lots of "practicing entities" that do trollish behavior (Microsoft being a big one). The problem with patent trolling tends to be that it's little more than a classic shakedown. Trying to get companies to pay up because the cost of paying up is usually a lot less than the cost of going to court to explain why you shouldn't have to pay up.

There is, not surprisingly, a fascinating discussion in the comments to the IP Troll Tracker's definition. A lot of it is people quibbling with who's to blame here -- arguing that there may be problems with the Patent Office granting patents it shouldn't or with some form of "litigation abuse," but that patent trolls aren't the "problem." That's... questionable at best. While it may be true that patent trolls aren't doing anything "illegal," it doesn't take any special economic skills to recognize that what they are doing is a deadweight economic loss.

Anyone who's spent any time exploring the murky underworld of patent trolling knows what is mostly happening. Quite frequently it's lawyers -- often former patent attorneys -- who absolutely know they're abusing the system for profit and they don't care about it at all. They buy up a few patents that they know are just vague enough and then they just start sending out the settlement letters and wait for the cash to come in. This is not "promoting the progress." It is not advancing any innovation. It is purely about taking money away from those who actually innovate, and handing it over to trolls and their investors, not to reinvest in any sort of innovation, but to reinvest in trolling.

from the time-to-push-harder dept

Post sponsored by

One year ago this week, the House overwhelmingly passed bipartisan patent reform legislation — the Innovation Act — to stop patent trolls from suing innovators, collecting billions, costing jobs and undermining economic growth. The Senate failed to act, but there’s no reason this bipartisan bill should not become law.

Much like a kid handing over his lunch money to a bully, patent trolls are extortionists who sue small companies for money. Patent trolls do not create jobs or products, but instead get rich by suing or threatening litigation to extract licensing fees from businesses and tech entrepreneurs.

In 2011 the founder of TMSOFT, Todd Moore became acquainted with patent trolls when Lodsys, a patent holding company aka patent troll, sued Moore over the "White Noise” mobile app he developed. The patent troll letter said Moore was in violation of 4 of their patents. Lodsys doesn’t even produce apps or anything for that matter.

Small business owners like Moore aren’t the only victims of patent trolls. Patent extortionist Lodsys went ahead and also sued Walt Disney Company over apps.

Big or small, no one is safe from patent trolls. UNLESS Congress takes action and changes our laws. Patent trolls bleed $80 billion a year from the U.S. economy, that’s 1.5 billion a week!

The House has taken action, now it is up to the Senate.

The Innovation Movement, sponsored by the Consumer Electronics Association, unites those who believe innovation is critical to American global leadership and economic growth. The Innovation Movement uses grassroots advocacy tools to support smart public policies, like patent litigation reform, that foster startups and innovation. To learn more about the Innovation Movement’s work fighting patent trolls, visit trollticker.com, follow on Twitter @imovement and like Innovation Movement on Facebook.

from the check-it-out dept

As you hopefully know by now, we recently launched the Techdirt podcast, and while I recently did an awesome stuff post on podcasts to listen to, I've been heard from a few people who don't yet listen to podcasts, and aren't quite sure how to use them. So this week, I thought I'd share a few podcast listening tools for smartphones.

First up, Pocket Casts from ShiftJelly, because this is the app I use, and I love it. By far the most intuitive podcast listening app that I've tried. The interface is clear and simple to use (with a little learning curve up front) -- and, most important to me, it has the ability to speed up podcasts up to 3x speed (and they mean it, unlike some other apps that basically lie, because Apple used to lie). I also like it because I use multiple playlists with different filters -- so I have a "timely" playlist of podcasts I want to listen to as soon as they're available, and a much longer list of other podcasts that I work my way through as convenient. I'm stupidly completist, though, in feeling the need to at least listen to some of basically every podcast I download. That's why the 3x speed helps. Pocket Casts also syncs your account, so you can use multiple devices, or switch from device to device with ease.

Soundcloud's mobile app. We're happily hosting our podcast on Soundcloud, and I know some people have just been using the Soundcloud app to subscribe and listen to our podcast. It's a nicely designed app that also gives you the ability to record via the app and directly upload it to your own Soundcloud account. Also, since Soundcloud is so popular with musicians and DJs and such, there's lots of good music to check out.

It seems like Stitcher really stands out these days as one of the most popular podcast/radio listening apps out there. It's the one that I most commonly hear people say they use. You can also listen to radio programs via Stitcher as as well. I used it for a few months and it was nice, but personally I like Pocket Casts a bit more. Stitcher seemed more focused on streaming live over downloading first, but it does let you do either one. Stitcher was recently acquired by Deezer (a Spotify-like service that has a big following outside the US). It's not clear how the two services will integrate, but you could see how it might make Stitcher have even more variety going forward.

I'm curious what other podcasting apps people use. In the past I've also used AstroPlayer (worked great, but had a terrible and confusing user interface), and some friends have recommended DoggCatcher (which is Android only). On the iPhone side, I know Marco Arment recently launched Overcast (which is a great name for a podcasting app) and he tends to do really good work, so I'm assuming -- without testing it, since I don't have an iPhone -- that it's a good one. It certainly advertises some neat features, including "smart speed" to cut out silence to speed stuff up without having to speed up the voices, and "voice boost" to normalize volumes (which sounds really handy). What do you use to listen to podcasts?

from the innovation-works-by-making-things-more-efficient dept

Each year, CEA (the Consumer Electronics Association) inducts a new group of inventors, engineers, business leaders, retailers and journalists to our Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame. And it's not lost on us that we celebrate innovation and disruption tonight in New York City, where New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has fired the most recent shots against creative disruption and the sharing economy in his ongoing attack against Airbnb.

The term "sharing economy" refers to platforms that make it easy for anyone to become an entrepreneur by offering up an unused resource for sale or rent, be it an empty bedroom, a parked car or a skill. While still a fledgling industry, the sharing economy will have a substantial impact on our nation's overall economic success -- enhancing competition and consumer choice, lowering barriers to entrepreneurship and boosting consumption overall -- but that depends on regulatory atmospheres at the federal and local levels that promote, rather than stifle, innovation and entrepreneurship.

More Choices, Greater Efficiency

The sharing economy includes new platforms for existing providers of different goods and services (like transportation, lodging or cleaning) that let consumers compare prices and features before they buy. For example, some people may choose not to purchase a vehicle because they find their needs are met through ridesharing, while others who might decide to buy a new car using their supplementary income from ridesharing. There are also platforms for selling unique items (Etsy) or offering specific, freelance labor services (oDesk, TaskRabbit) – production and exchange opportunities not previously available to consumers.

Lowering Barriers to Entry

Suppliers in the sharing economy –- sometimes referred to as "micropreneurs" -- have backgrounds as varied as the goods and services available. Peer-to-peer businesses allow for flexibility in hours and payment for skills or basic services that may not constitute full-time employment. More, these jobs eventually may act as "on ramps" to full-time, sole proprietorships or other entrepreneurial activities.

Growing the Pie

The peer-to-peer businesses enabled by these new platforms can draw on underused human capital: People supplement their full-time jobs with extra work as Airbnb hosts or Lyft drivers, for example, or professional providers can find additional work via platforms like Uber and Kitchit. Technological change that generates more output from the same capital, or that facilitates a more efficient use of labor, increases productivity. This kind of productivity-enhancing, technological change typically contributes to long-term economic growth -- a "bigger pie" -- that can often boost other industries as well.

The 2014 Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame induction celebrates the promotion of technology, the delivery of consumer products in new, exciting and profitable ways, and the importance of ensuring that innovation and entrepreneurship can thrive. But when this innovation threatens legacy businesses such as broadcasters, hotels, or taxis, these entrenched industries use their heft to influence regulation and enforcement to block competition. CEA stands with Airbnb and the countless other disruptive innovators that fuel the sharing economy and, in turn, drive our greater economic growth.

from the or-something dept

For this week's awesome stuff post of interesting crowdfunding projects, we've got various takes on home security and alarms.

Point

The Point is an interesting new take on "the internet of things" and sensors. It's a little device with a bunch of sensors designed to alert you on your phone, if it senses something is wrong in the house. If it hears breaking glass, for example, it can alert you. Or if the noise is too loud (and unlike some other devices it doesn't send the content over the internet, it just alerts you). It tracks noise, air (smoke), temperature, humidity and some other things and can send alerts and also light up differently in the home as well. It's a rather different take on these things, done in a way that doesn't feel as privacy-invasive as a number of other connected home offerings.

rClock

You kind of have to see the rClock in action to get it, but it's an alarm clock with a big plastic stick on it, that can swing down and "tap" you, to try to wake you up without making noise (though, I'd imagine that the tapping might make some amount of noise). I'm not sure I'd personally feel comfortable with a robotic alarm clock slapping me in the morning to wake me up, but it is a different sort of alarm...

BeOn

OK, the BeOn isn't an alarm, per se, but does some interesting things to hopefully mean you wouldn't need a home burglar alarm. It's a sort of smart lightbulb that pays attention to when and how you use the lights in your house -- and if you set it to "away" mode, it just mimics your usual lighting patterns, to make anyone looking from the outside think that you're home. A lot more clever than the standard trick of just using a regular timer. The other neat feature is that it can listen for the doorbell to ring, and then turn on lights, at various intervals, around the house as if it's someone coming to the door. Of course, while that might scare off a potential burglar, it might confuse the heck out of a friend stopping by unannounced to say hello...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The "magic" of magnets have been observed for quite some time, but it's not actually an easily explained phenomenon that magnets can repel and attract in various configurations. Still, we can take advantage of this property of magnets, and create some amazing tricks of levitation that seemingly defy gravity. We could have a commercial hoverboard for kids to play with (as an actual toy) pretty soon, and we could potentially have some other even cooler devices based on "hover" technology. If only we could get a Mr. Fusion device together....